Skip to main content

Iowa Caucus Thoughts

You'd have to be crazy to see what happened on the GOP side as anything other than a huge win for Sen. Rubio. You don't have to win Iowa; you just have to do better than people thought you would, and he did that, coming close to winning outright. Cruz won, but not in a way that scares his rivals. He played up his evangelical credentials, and was rewarded. But New Hampshire doesn't vote like that. The nominee doesn't have to win that state, either, but you have to show strength. Cruz will get crushed. Though Rubio is at least as conservative on the issues as Cruz, these nominations are about style and perception as well. Rubio seems moderate, because the rhetoric in this "preseason" was so absurdly extreme. The reality is that Rubio would be the most conservative Republican nominee since Reagan. What exactly that means is anybody's guess. But if moderates and big-money donors flock to Rubio as the best alternative for them, it testifies to formidable political skill. Or I might say, personal skill. If the risk-averse big shots like you, knowing they don't agree with you, then your likability is pretty high.

On the Democratic side, Hillary's virtual tie with Bernie Sanders speaks opposing truths simultaneously: Clinton is a fatally flawed candidate who will win anyway. She is hoping for Trump or Cruz, because she can't win otherwise. That's how I see it. If she gets indicted, we'll see how well-liked Martin O'Malley is, because it'd be a speed date.

Bernie is a True Believer in a party of cynics and pragmatists, and I can't see any scenario where he wins the nomination. If Clinton weren't so dreadful, she'd be thanking Heaven. Anyone with an ounce of charisma and realism would trounce her, and she knows it. (See 2008.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un